I didn't want to muck up Vicki's thread, but I got to wondering about the competitors who ran that blind the week before, then kept mum when that same blind appeared in the trial. If you were a member of that training group, and suddenly realized the judge had just given you an unethical (potentially major) advantage, would you speak up? Or thank your lucky stars?
So what would you do? (hypotheatrical based on VW's thread)
1 - 20 of 54 Posts
Joined
·
3,134 Posts
I voted to shut my mouth and see how it plays out.
Joined
·
1,166 Posts
Shut my mouth, unless my dog screws it up. Then tell the committee.
Just kidding. Trying to pick up some of Shayne's slack.
Lisa
Just kidding. Trying to pick up some of Shayne's slack.
Lisa
Joined
·
3,134 Posts
If that type of stuff is being pulled at least one of the judges and more than likely some or most of the FTC know it as well so I am not sure as a contestant what I would gain by reporting it to the FTC. I know that is NOT going to be the typical response but that is just the way I would do it.KJB said:
By the way, shame on them for doing it.
Patrick Johndrow said:
Patrick, you sound so jaded. You're probably right, but I'd hate to assume that the entire crowd hosting the trial is as crooked as that. I feel like I'd have to say something to someone, otherwise I'd feel like I'm just passively enabling that kind of crap to continue.
Now if you were just waiting to see exactly who needed an arse beating and intended to give them "what for" in private, that would come under the "other" option I couldn't seem to add to the poll. :wink:
Joined
·
3,134 Posts
Cheating to win is nothing new and is typically relegated to those who could never be competive without cheating. The biggest impact it has had on me in the past (other sporting venues of course) has been the fact I got so twisted off at the person(s) that it took me out of my game.KJB said:
You don?t need another option?their (cheaters) pathetic existence is enough punishment.
Joined
·
941 Posts
What Would You Do (based upon VW thread)
KJB. You did good. You did not impose on my thread--probably fleshed it out better.
I voted to notify the FT Committee. If they fail to take action, then at least I know that I have done the proper thing.
Letting it go unmentioned is tantamount to giving approval. The participants who trained on the blind were as much at fault as the judge. But....the JUDGE is charged with the responsibility to administer a fair test for EVERY participant--not just fellow clients.
KJB. You did good. You did not impose on my thread--probably fleshed it out better.
I voted to notify the FT Committee. If they fail to take action, then at least I know that I have done the proper thing.
Letting it go unmentioned is tantamount to giving approval. The participants who trained on the blind were as much at fault as the judge. But....the JUDGE is charged with the responsibility to administer a fair test for EVERY participant--not just fellow clients.
Joined
·
1,045 Posts
The field trial regulations provide:
"The Field Trial Committee of a club holding a licensed or member trial shall have the authority to decide upon any matter arising during the running of the trial, except a matter coming within the jurisdiction of the Judges". The regulations further provide: "the Judges are solely responsible for the nature and content of the tests in the stake they are judging".
The FTC decides a test is unfair. They inform the judges of this. Judges say they are going to run the test anyway. What does FTC do? What can they do?
"The Field Trial Committee of a club holding a licensed or member trial shall have the authority to decide upon any matter arising during the running of the trial, except a matter coming within the jurisdiction of the Judges". The regulations further provide: "the Judges are solely responsible for the nature and content of the tests in the stake they are judging".
The FTC decides a test is unfair. They inform the judges of this. Judges say they are going to run the test anyway. What does FTC do? What can they do?
Joined
·
941 Posts
What Would You Do (based upon VW thread)
That is correct Doug. The tests are the purview of the judges. But...doesn't this repesent conduct prejudicial against the sport? I don't think even a knowingly dishonest person would be inclined to continue with a test if the FT Committee told them they KNEW that contestants had trained on the test just days before the trial--that would take some real brass....
That is correct Doug. The tests are the purview of the judges. But...doesn't this repesent conduct prejudicial against the sport? I don't think even a knowingly dishonest person would be inclined to continue with a test if the FT Committee told them they KNEW that contestants had trained on the test just days before the trial--that would take some real brass....
Joined
·
3,234 Posts
The question as posed is "what would you do," not "what is the correct thing to do."
Therefore, I voted #2, as novice at FTs as I am, and given my pension for not keeping my mouth shut, it would be just like me to open my mouth and say something really stupid. :lol:
As for deciding what is the correct thing to do, I'll just sit here and watch and learn. :wink:
Therefore, I voted #2, as novice at FTs as I am, and given my pension for not keeping my mouth shut, it would be just like me to open my mouth and say something really stupid. :lol:
As for deciding what is the correct thing to do, I'll just sit here and watch and learn. :wink:
Joined
·
3,234 Posts
This has come up a couple times before. I believe the correct answer was the only recourse for the committee was to include a write-up with the paperwork they submit to AKC.Doug Main said:
Joined
·
9,826 Posts
OK since there is no good solution to this scenario, here is what I would do
1. call back all the dogs that got the bird, no matter how poorly
2. run another water blind in totally different area
3. have a serious heart to heart talk with my co-judge about ethics
4. report the incident to Performance Events
since this course of action wasn't a choice I didn't vote 8)
1. call back all the dogs that got the bird, no matter how poorly
2. run another water blind in totally different area
3. have a serious heart to heart talk with my co-judge about ethics
4. report the incident to Performance Events
since this course of action wasn't a choice I didn't vote 8)
Joined
·
1,166 Posts
OK, Ed, but what if instead of being the judge, you were running a dog? And you were one of the "Wednesday Regulars" who ran it in training just a couple of days before?
Now what would you do? What if you knew, by speaking up, that you would lose access to your training grounds and be kicked out of your training group? What would you do?
Lisa
Now what would you do? What if you knew, by speaking up, that you would lose access to your training grounds and be kicked out of your training group? What would you do?
Lisa
Joined
·
1,166 Posts
Now that is a real world response!
You might still get the boot from your training group, tho'.
Nobody Loves a Whistle Blower Regards,
Lisa
Joined
·
3,806 Posts
The ONLY people who would speak up are the ones that don't trust the others in their training group!!!! I know, it's very sad... pathetic even... when i a man can't trust his training group.
I would call an immediate meeting of the training group, spit in our hands, draw blood, or pinky swear on our best shotgun. If anyone seemed hesitant.... go tell the judge Aycock ran that blind 2 days ago.
Shayne
I would call an immediate meeting of the training group, spit in our hands, draw blood, or pinky swear on our best shotgun. If anyone seemed hesitant.... go tell the judge Aycock ran that blind 2 days ago.
Shayne
Joined
·
1,166 Posts
It's human nature, really. And yes, sad. Even when the whistle-blower is dead-on right, there will always be that "Will he/she turn on ME next?" thing in the back of everyone's mind. This does not apply just to dog stuff.
It's Not Easy To Do The Right Thing Regards
Lisa
1 - 20 of 54 Posts
Join the discussion
Join now to ask and comment!